RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.
The Magic of Reality
for the iPad
Sean Faircloth:
Attack of the Theocrats!
You poor male babies. It is an horrific multilation. I understand that the excuse in later years had to do with the gunk that could be collected under the foreskin, especially in the mercantile and navy professions (this discounts the religious imperative from the Jews who made it into a rite of passage).
I personally have never f****d any man who wasn't circumcised. By my time it had become a medical procedure that (supposedly) kept men 'clean' of the gunk. This has been spread throughout the 20th and, now, the 21st century. I have no way of knowing how valid these hygenic claims are.
I am a woman - how would I know what you blokes are told, and/or believe? I thought that sexual excitation was more sensitive for men having been circumcised which meant the glans was more excitable. I don't know that to be true. And how would my partners have known it to be true either? They were all circumcised.
I was young enough at the birth of both my sons to allow circumcision because it was 'the thing to do'. I don't even recall questioning this act.
Who has seduced whom with this act? Tell me, please.
V
Permalink Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:25:00 UTC | #29971